Corona Investigative Committee, 135th Session on December 23rd, 2022

Dr. Monica Jiang, MD

(Original language: GERMAN)

[Transcript from Team + Ed]

[Transcript of simultaneous translation from German to English:]

Viviane Fischer: [01:16:30]
…now we have Dr. Monica Jiang. She is a general practitioner, and she is also affected by a… legal proceedings against her. Dr. Jiang.

Monica Jiang, MD:
Hello. Thank you for the invitation. First of all, is the sound OK? There is a bit of an echo, but I can still hear you.

It’s OK.

Monica Jiang, MD:

Dr. Monica Jiang, MD

I’ll try to get close to the mic. The sound check was OK, I was told. OK.

So I am in Weinheim in the court in a proceeding which was a bit one-sided in the press. So there was a prejudiced for 4374 allegedly false mask attestations. And if I look at this, what i’ve just heard, as our legal system works, I noted and I recognized a lot of the things. The thing is that there is quite an intensity to things that were fully senseless. Wearing the masks is, the study is situation is quite clear, on one side. And that’s what the prosecutors in Mannheim look at now, not only with me. In my case, I had two hearings, and the ruling is going to be on the 2nd of January.

And the prosecution asked for three and a half years, and three years of work ban, including my employee. And she is going to be suspended for a year and sentenced to a fine. And now the prosecution is really working on things that are long time, long since overhauled and old, outdated. They again address all the patients, so there’s numerous lawsuits across the whole of Germany, and also here. And many, many prosecutions for patients, simply by changing the applicabable law, which is simply twisted and turned and used for wrong purposes. And unfortunately I don’t have the name of the people, the person who spoke before me, because I came later. The time of politeness is over, I can only agree with this. We have to call the things as they are. And this turned out in the last two years with the masks and all the proceedings that we saw.

Thank you, Dr. Jungbluth is the name. We see nothing happens. Things get worse, and no– in most areas we have no mask mandates, but the prosecution doesn’t care about this, and the twisting of the law took on on completely wrong sense. It’s just a lust in prosecution, really, that we can see here, where they _could_ take care of more important things, and they should do so. Because our society as a whole and medically, we have completely different problems by now. We don’t have the problem of the masks any more. But by now, we definitely have a problem that people simply die. We have adverse effects, patients are not treated, and from the protective sides of the shots and the psychological issues, we have a massive need. we have [prostamatic] disturbances, all the terrorization that patients have to suffer. And people who have a mask certificate or can’t wear the mask, or he didn’t wear a mask, are simply prosecuted.

And also now even at their homes. The worst thing I heard was a seventy-year-old patient who was, at seven o’clock in the morning– had her home surched at the seven o’clock in the morning to find a certificate. Of course she was totally shocked that she didn’t find anything. She didn’t know what they wanted from her. And of course this is additionally traumatization and fear-mongering. So all the fear line is added to this.

And besides all this twisting of the law, it’s really time to call a spade a spade and not go along. Had we– and this is what Dr. Jungbluth rightly said– if we, the people 2020 said, “I can’t wear the mask. I’m not going to wear the mask. I refuse to do so”, we wouldn’t have to be here today. And we wouldn’t have to have these lawsuits that we’re having to today, which are really getting to show cases now, apart from not being public.

In my case, for example, the public was systematically excluded, with the excuse that everybody has to be protected. And there is, you have to have, keep your distance in front of the court, and so on. In the first hearing, there was three to six people allowed. And the second day, one more was allowed in. So theoretically it was seven. But that is no public. And the reason for that was that the public is informed by the press. But the press was pre-selected.

And these are the things where I really think– my impression is: this is not the rule of law as you think the rule of law would be, as a normal citizen or as a person with a strong _sense_ for the rule of law. I have a good sense of what is true and what’s not true, what’s right and what’s wrong. And that is no publicity. And this is why I’m very thankful that you provide opportunity for a popular hearing here. Yes, there are a number of doctors who were in front of Dr. Weikl. One was the first one that I noted, who clearly said and addressed the topic at the time, and really said what is going on, and called a spade a spade. Before it was a bit of a diplomatic on how to look at the physical examination and so on. Roni Weikl appealed to the prosecutors and the judges on the 6th of December this year, clearly stating what was said, clearly appealing to drop all these mask lawsuits because they have no legal base, whatever perspective you look at them from. So this is just a slap in the face.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
I’m imagining that we, the doctors, had said, “We will not issue mask certificates. We simply won’t issue them. And if you– but we tell you that this mask will be harmful to you. It is really harmful. It’s dangerous, and particularly for your children. But we will not issue certificates.” What would have happened then?

Monica Jiang, MD:
That’s an interesting hypothesis. This happened a little bit in the beginning of 2020. It was quite quickly the case that nearly no doctors issued mask certificates. And the result was for me and the few who did so, that patients queued up. That was one thing. And I noted that this year from autumn on, we said exactly that: stand up, take care of yourself. You are adults; you can fight for yourself. Fight for your rights. Fight for your children’s. A mask certificate won’t help you in that.

And in 2020, I rather observe that there were many people who were patients, who were helpless; they were overwhelmed; they were at their limits. They couldn’t have done it at the time. At least that is what I noted, to fight for their rights. Some very very few did so, but most of them weren’t able to do so. And especially those who panic under the mask or who had physical harm and difficulties. They were traumatized, and they couldn’t do it for themselves.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [01:26:16]
Are there other social groups of people who have suffered damages by wearing masks or who suffered from having to wear a mask? They could have got together. Was there any… approach that as a doctor you… said, you know, “We open up a self-help group for everyone to meet.” I mean, that would be a possibility to organize a new form of resistance.

Monica Jiang, MD:
I have no idea. I don’t know about that. But the cases that by now I do see, we have much more urgent problems since this injection activity. And it’s easy to look at it in retrospective, but when it was up to our ears, and all the patients were there, they were overwhelmed. On one side, we have the general fear and panic, on one side. And also, we had an aspect of the mega critical psychological pressure by threats, by punishment in the media, and the people amongst each other, how people were prosecuted on the roads and everywhere.

People tend to forget this, but people were kicked out of the shops. It was about the basics. It was buying food stuff, buying things. It was about allowing to go where you want to go, to the government office and authorities and so on. And mainly buying your groceries. That was a massive pressure on this. That was very systematic and directed, and “well implemented”, in quotes.

And here, I’d like to add to what was just said before. In the beginning, it was not very clear. Of course, now, in the last three years, nearly, we’ve learned extremely much. But what wasn’t clear in the beginning was all these crimes against humanity on the torture aspects in this. And on the 26th of 11. there was this criminal court which was filed in Den Haag against crimes against humanity, due to the completeness of the measures. And here, in the press declaration and the text, again and again the masks are mentioned as a means of torture by combining and accumulating of individual techniques, which are harmless apparently, in themselves.

And all that was joined up together — the different aspects of psychological pressure, the punishment, people were made dependent and subjected to physical and psychological torture. For example, by forcing people, and children, to wear masks, by forcing to wear– pregnant women in delivery to wear masks. And if you look at children in the schools and you examine them how they are with masks. They had to wear the masks in overall context, so until they had to vomit into their mask; they collapsed.

And that is the physical experience, loss of control and punishment and these things that were threatened. And that makes these things crimes against humanity. Not with everyone, but it inexperience. If I have a concrete patient who is in front of court now. She was traumatized and because her mouth was closed, covered up, she was raped, For this kind of person, it is psycho terror, having to wear a mask. And this is simply a crime against humanity, against the dignity of people. It is incredible that this is being prosecuted as a crime. She got an attestation, and I certified that she can’t wear it on both sides. It’s incredible that these kinds of things are prosecuted. Now that shows where the state of law is, and what state it is in.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
The questions that we treated in a prior discussion, with Mr. Weikl, it was about the benefit and the questionability of… these filters. And a lot of arguments were brought together. We know a lot. And we know that it causes much more harm and and no benefit. You know, a mask like that can be used in an infectious diseases ward or in a dusty environment. There is enough research on that. But very rarely did it have any tangible benefit. And I can not understand. If this is so clear, then there must be a possibility to, by a court, you know, it’s an international judgment that said, you know, masks are not helpful; people should not be forced to wear them. Was there any judgment in any country? That would be nice. I mean, that one person cannot wear masks is completely different from saying that the harm is more than the benefit, and therefore it’s not indicated. I think the problem is, medically speaking, there are studies, no end, that exactly state that.

Monica Jiang, MD:
Correct. And they are extremely– were published in large numbers. I think the problem is more that the legal system is no longer what it used to be. And you asked about a legal, is there a court judgment.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
Yes, international.

Monica Jiang, MD:
Well you’d have to look very far afield, I think. In Europe, I’m not aware of it anyway, that this exists in Europe. But the strategy of the public prosecution and the judge is that that content, arguments and relating to the content, to we are blocked. To me it looks like a show trial. She said it is a legal question; it’s not a medical question. And therefore what Dr. Jungbluth said, that the legal system– that lawyers put themselves above the medical profession. And that makes no sense, because it’s not a legal question whether I can wear a mask. It’s a matter for physiology. And that’s how they are conducting the trial. And they’re trying to, you know, they’re not looking at the content. They’re just basing it on paragraphs and trying to get a judgment as quickly as possible.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
There are politicians who say, “This is what you have to do. This is beneficial.” And you know, it’s beneficial. And then there’s Robert Koch and all these, the medical profession says it’s useful. That’s one aspect. And on the other hand, there are sides. Now there are politicians in many countries. Perhaps Mr. Jungbluth can answer that. Are there, is there anything when the arguments were considered and the benefit was [denied] to exist, then it must have relevance for Europe as well. I mean, when things are proved, when medications are approved in one country, it applies to other European countries as well. So we have the evidence-based decisions there as well, that are made in one country and then apply in other countries as well. Has that ever been done in any country? Is there a result? Then the result should apply in all European countries, as well, because the other countries, you know, put it down to a legal question. If you think it through logically, then in Europe, one court judgment should suffice to say there was no indication for masks.

David Jungbluth, MD: [01:35:28]
Well, logics and law is two different pairs of shoes in this context. And maybe to answer the question, I can’t completely answer it whether there has been any rulings in the question whether their masks serve any purpose or not. I wouldn’t know of any, but of course I don’t know all 190 countries where this could have been ruled. The problem is, however, that first of all, I can well imagine that these decisions have never been taken, because nobody wants to take that role, because it’s not necessary. Even if you lift the bans, you could look at a different point from the perspective of the law. It’s not appropriate, or there is no legal base for it.

So that you can swell around the problem with the mask and this could be one of the reasons why this point was never addressed: because it’s a question of the evidence, which need times, expertise, account expertise. And the court has to look at this in all its wisdom, and this is what the judges don’t like to do so much. And under this circumstance, I think this is not possible or this has not been done other ways. If it were done elsewhere and whatever, check out Croatia or whatever, it is not binding for others. These are different legal systems where Germany would not be obliged to follow. It would be different if the European court would decide this, but the national legal entities are independent, independent of the question that is– probably doesn’t exist.

So maybe briefly to add to your court. I– sorry, I didn’t want to… take your stage here. So this is kind of a playing… around the corner. But that Germany fits the picture, that I know. Here, we have a number of points of attack. You have a lawyer of course. I don’t want to kick in here from the side, but I would say attack is the best defense. The point is, or the simple question which was discussed before, the question is whether these people are biased or not. If they think, they believe in the narrative, they are biased. So the question if this is possible, then of course that is pushed under the table. but you could kind of slow things down a bit.

And the second point is the public. The argument that the press is there and that is public, I think that is stupid, to be polite. That’s a second point.

Now the third point is, and that’s most evident, if you say that the matter of fact is actually not addressed, what’s the basis to take a legal decision, if the facts are not looked at? And that quickly takes us to an area where the court may say this has been found elsewhere. But if the things are so briefly addressed, and we’ve seen that with Mr. Schmitz of the federal court, that the facts are simply ignored as it’s reported, that is a perversion of law.

And it’s part of the orderly proceedings that the facts are taken and taken into account. There may be different views of these. But if this is simply neglected, that is not the point. And for me, quite clearly this is the perversion of law, and I would simply file a lawsuit xxxxx. They are not gods in black, although they think they may be. They have to follow the law, at least theoretically. And without really wanting to kick in from the sidelines here, this is what I would like to do. And even if you are not prosecuted. But they won’t get it in any other kind of way, just really kicking this xxx hard stone.

Monica Jiang, MD: [01:39:45]
Well it’s difficult because, because you know, I have, I’m not, I haven’t got any legal knowledge, prior knowledge, but I’m working on it. And it’s astonishing, the complete ignorance of fact or evidence, because the question is: is a certificate allowed or not? Does the mask cause more harm, or cause more benefit? There is, Dr. [Klein] issued an opinion on the 20th of October, 2020, and we use it as evidence. It says everything that you need to know about masks, looked at from all sides, what you need to know, what is state of the art, scientifically speaking. So it’s not… the case that there was no data. My impression is that just _because_ of that, they’re trying to avoid to look at data sources or content or scientific evidence.

David Jungbluth, MD: [01:40:56]
Yeah, but that won’t be the basic _idea
_ of it, of course. And of course, you can present this in court. But then the court is going to say, “This is the free decision of the judge, and this is not relevant.” And this is how the courts do it, and they– nobody objects to that. And this is– I would clearly counteract this and fight against this. This is simply the way. That applies to Mr. Schmidt’s lawsuit as well. I would have prosecuted him as well, this judge as well. Of course it’s political. You can’t see it any other– you call it show [trial]. It’s the same word, same… thing.

This is an historical finding, that in states where there are totalitarian activisms– I don’t want to say that they’re structured that way– that the law and the legal people _never_ have worked against the state. And this is why we have this international law, with the competence of the international court and the allowance of third states to take action. Because experience has seen that if a state drops into totalitarianstructures, the legal system always goes along. And the legal check of powers is simply eroded.

Viviane Fischer: [01:42:40]
…what Maus said: that “suddenly” in the light of the New World Order, the new beliefs with regard to hygiene are the big health risk or solidarity I use, and all the other things are then ignored. And I think that is… catastrophic, that… this should be prevented.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
Isn’t that perversion of law, as what we have seen in Weimar, where the judge _did_ look at the facts and the evidence and got the experts in, with respect of the indication of masks for children? That is what they’ve done. They did that, he did it. And then _he_ was accused of perverting the law, because he wasn’t, supposedly wasn’t the right court, and he was incompetent, and so on.

So that is what _they_ use as a term, in order to get that kind of sentence out of the way. And they are a very rigid in what they do. And that the politics there, that’s what they mean, the politics are–

David Jungbluth, MD:
Well I am all in favor of holding against it, not vaguely but wholeheartedly. It’s always difficult, when you’re not involved, to give a legal opinion on a case that you’re not involved in.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
So these are all means of the rule of law.

David Jungbluth, MD:
Peacefull means. That’s what we’re talking about here. With regard to the court case in Weimar, we agree that it should have an offputting effect. I only know it superficially. In my opinion, what happened was that the court acted courageously; well not courageously. I’m… always– the court did for what it was supposed to do, as per its job description. What was unhappy was that the court obtained opinions from people where it was clear what they were thinking on the other side.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
Actually no. In this case, the other side didn’t want to take their statement.

David Jungbluth, MD:
…whether of the opinion was– was it… asked for by the court … to be on the safe side, but you’re always better informed afterwards. You could have perhaps asked for opinions from both sides. And then you wouldn’t have been–

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
Well I don’t think we should get into this in too much detail, but we’ll ask the judge.

Viviane Fischer:
I think analysis of the different studies was done. It wasn’t just a different opinions.

David Jungbluth, MD:
Well so I wouldn’t want to comment on this without having read it. As far as the competency is concerned, that is nonsense. At least it was disputed. A family court can decide this, as far as I am informed, because that is quite broad in it’s competence. And the starting situation that the lawmakers had thought of was that it is _parents_ that fail in their handling, or their educating of the children.

Then the realm was opened, and is open that the benefit of the child could be affected and that could include the state, at least that is the dispute. And on this aspect quite surely, it is _not_ a case of perversion of law. That this court is competent. It’s a political case, and the same ping pong goes on and on. So you can talk about the, you can prosecute the people from the police or the prosecutors themselves.

Monica Jiang, MD: [01:46:51]
Well the question is: is it going to be successful? Because my impression is specifically, with regard to the court, they are, it looks to me as if they’re still brainwashed or influenced. They have, they live in a world of their own, and there is no option to look at it objectively, or to look at both sides, as should be done by a court. Sofor the last three, they… decide within a world that’s been … defined in the last three years, and everyone who is against it can only be bad, irrespective of the context. And I think, I have the impression they are, you can, they can no longer be reached. The prosecutor, what she said, it was either manipulative, or they… have a world view– I won’t quote what she said, but it was a closed circle, in a sense. There was no the world outside of that, outside of this world of mask wearing.

And what I think is tragic is that the general… persecution of everything. You know me or the patients, anyone they could get their hands on. And what has also not been addressed sufficiently by colleagues neither. The paragraph 108, 78 was changed to make it useful for what they’re doing with it now. we have a fact. We have prosecuting at 2020 it was clear, but there was no legal case. it was only established in November 2021, on the 23rd of November. And what they want to prosecute is now according to the new law that didn’t exist at the time. There are several facts tha are legally not congruent [or that do] legally not make sense.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [01:49:26]
Can you state that modification of that act, what was done?

Monica Jiang, MD:
Well, I have to read from, I have to read it out to you, because that point as well, Ronald Weikl was the first one who emphasized it. Before that, I wasn’t aware of it, before the court case. So in 2020, the paragraph: “the doctors who issue a certificate on the state of health about a patient and issue it illegally are given… a jail sentence.” And that applied to six certificates etc.

And the paragraph doesn’t fit the mask certificates. It’s neither certification of the state of health. It’s also even in a legal sense. If I know, as a doctor, that the masks cause harm, and what harm they cause, I cannot… have people get sick through wearing a mask. You know, the original case was: you had to examine people, whether they should be allowed to wear masks. And for children, there wasn’t– you know, it’s an artificial construction that was, thanks to the, or in the cause of, or in favor of the strategies which were invented, which has no legal base nor scientific nor a medical nor a content base.

And then in November they said: if you issue an illegal certification on the health of a person it’s prosecuted and given a jail sentence or a fine. And then they– if policeman confiscates a certificate, it is intended to be presented to an authority. You know, they’re twisting the law, and it has nothing to do with what was originally intended by it.

David Jungbluth, MD:
Just, I didn’t want to interrupt you. I just wanted to answer that question, whether it’s possible that the old cases are ruled by new law, so to say. That was the initial question or the assessment. This is, of course, not possible. That’s the basic, fundamental. means no punishment without a law. That means only after a law is in force it can be used to rule people. So if until tomorrow not buying a ticket and riding the train, you do that today, you can’t be punished by that tomorrow.

My point is that the prosecution was started on the old law. And then one of the courts decided that this law does not match it. And then the lawmaker was active and created a _new_ paragraph. But that was _disputed,_ whether that old law applied. And now they do it in two ways. They deal with the old cases in the old form and the new ones in the new one. And that’s, of course, a contradiction as well, if the old paragraph would have been applicable one have to create a new one. And that’s the only situations, or the only explanation that I can think of looking at this. Because this is absolutely– if you trespass this, you can’t forget everything that you do. I can’t just imagine that the cases that were relevant prior to the new law are ruled by the new law. They will have to be ruled by the old law, which is disputed as well. But as I said, logic is not playing a role here in these times.

Monica Jiang, MD: [01:54:27]
Well, it seems facts and logic seem to get in the way, rather. That’s my, that’s xxxxx unplesant. But also, apart from the court case, the whole way they proceed. Let me get back to the… other aspect. I think we should mention all aspects, and inspect this. If you– [Biedermann’s] diagram of force, and we– the masks. I find a lot in that diagram, of coercion. First people are limited in their freedom, and I’m thinking particularly of children. They can no longer see properly. They can’t get enough air. The whole focus is restricted. And then we reduce vitality. There is exhaustion, fatigue, mechanically speaking as well, particularly with regard to children, who have no choice and for hours have to wear these masks.

And then there is a threat massive threats, by others, from others, teachers, towards the children, the boss, the colleagues at work. Then there is a demonstration of a powerful force. That’s an important aspect, the helplessness they are experiencing. And Martin Seligman, many many years ago, researched on learned helplessness. How can you, how do you train– researcher with dogs. How you train, how you get people and animals to learn helplessness, and then stay within that helplessness. And that is– and the mask is a big instrument, has been a big instrument in that. Because if you… cannot show how I breathe, how my facial expression [is], then the social room is more and more limited, my options are more and more limited, and my whole world is more and more limited.

And then the no longer being able to recognize others, no longer being able to show your face, the legal aspect is one aspect. but the discussion of the content, what are the I mean there are now children who can no longer draw faces, who have speech difficulties because for long periods of time they were unable to decode and recognize faces and speech and lip movement. So there _is_ damage done, and I think it is crazy to now, with all that knowledge that we have gained and all the facts to prosecute mask crimes and to call them that. There is– the force is contradictory to human values.

David Jungbluth, MD:
I completely agree

Monica Jiang, MD:
And then finally on the Biederman diagram of coercion, the implementation of rules. It’s not just about masks. They say it’s only a mask. No, it’s about the combination of persecution, threat of well being caught out, being kicked out, the, you know, restriction offered the right to go shopping and to buy food. I think it’s time to look at it and to analyze it. And I think this will not be done by the legal profession or the courts or the German courts, the way it looks. It will have to be performed by everyone, by ourselves. And that’s why it’s important to publicize it, to raise awareness, because over the last two, three years, we have been driven from one fear to the next, from one emergency situation to the next.

And we are now, we’re talking … the unexpected, we have a huge problem. We have real problems but we come– over the last three years we have been driven from one emergency and one threat to the next. And there is a complete exhaustion amongst people. And we are not entrapped by any of the loops. This is where it comes full circle, you know. The mask is the only one, the only thing that helps. And Professor [Bella] at the mask in Greece recently. Everything exits. In the last three months, a lot of was published about masks and Professor [Bella] showed that masks, for one, it’s a security blanket, you know. It’s an anchor, because they have gained the illusion or were given the illusion that masks protect them. So it’s a means against their fear. And for the others, it is a trigger of fear, you know, “I can’t.. breathe.” Empathic people react, and when they see people wearing masks– there is stress research. Automatically with breathing and heartbeat, you– it’s… vegetative. It’s automatic. So when you see people with masks, who can’t breathe properly, this is a stress factor for others. It’s a medical fact, and well, it is incredible. It is incredible what’s being done, and how instead of analyzing it, how it’s being treated.

I mean the legal, the courts, not just the prosecutions because of the masks etc., but the fear that they get. Suddenly you’re taken to court. And I have a patient who served the state as a teacher all their lives. And now she’s being prosecuted because of not being able to, refusing to wear a mask, because you can’t wear a mask for a health reason, you know. She’s been, always served the state as a teacher. Now that same state, you know, prosecutes her because she… can’t wear a mask. And I think it’s is something that is–

Viviane Fischer:
Well, I think we have to say that the state is riding a wild horse here. And many people don’t want to hear about corona any more. I think the ninth is apparently now is ill somehow. RSV or metapneumococci or whatever, and it’s not really in the public any more. And some people do note. Also those people who are still connected to the narrative, that they think it’s obsolete, with people being prosecuted by this old stuff still. So I think it’s a two-sided sword that the state is running, or the judges that were just elected in this year.

David Jungbluth, MD: [02:03:21]
My impression is that if you feel the pressure of prosecution, and I think judges and public prosecutors no longer feel, in the atmosphere that we have, it’s… a bit unpleasant for them, particularly when they are faced with facts. But my impression is that the people who supported that narrative no longer want anything to do with it, you know, no longer want it to be discussed. And then OK, we still have court cases about the mask, but that is outside of their, they just want to continue as before, you know. New diseases, inflation, war and you know, it’s… kind of a past that they no longer want to look at.

And that’s why I agree with you that it is important to make it public, but in a sense, it remains within that circle of concern.

Viviane Fischer:
I do still think it’s important, although it’s simply neglected, things going on behind closed doors. And I think we have to say this lawsuit against [Stephan Kohl] from the minister of internal affairs which was public. It was interesting that the content of the paper that he published was not addressed at all. And this is something different. This has not gotten to a distributed outside. It was distributed in the ministry. And I have to say that that was also in his work that he did this and he was competent as well, to do this kind of work. And if I think that I write something, some nonsense, something absurd, for example, that we all are irradiated by sweets or something like that, something that’s completely out of the range, something that I can think up that has no basis in reality. And I send that around– then it’s a quite a different story, than if– just like in the certificate issue, I have a scientifically, carefully analyzed basis for what I say, and the normal methods of the assessment of the situation. Putting these things together and joining up the facts and the findings and pointing out a certain hazard.

And in this case, like a doctor who wants to prevent their patients from harm in normal medical examinations, I have to come to the conclusion that this is difficult, or in [Stefan Cohen’s] case, that raising a finger, this is something difficult and there is a potential risk here. That is different to saying, publishing complete nonsense. I think this has to be analyzed, and has to be part of the assessment of the courts. And that has to be demanded, and the finger has been put into the wound here, and I think this will need a cleansing process. And nobody will want to stand up to their courts and their rulings. and I think the judges should think well, whether they say we’ll drop this case, because whatever, just I have heard… myself in some of these so-called rally, mask things. That was dropped, and a judge could get out of the responsibly hy simply dropping that. And truly that would be better for the future and xxxx xxxxxx.

David Jungbluth, MD: [02:07:23]
Yes, definitely. This is the perspective that what we have to make clear to them. Because if I’m there as a judge, either I believe all of it, or I don’t. The cases are not just under _our_ public, but in the public of the Ministry of Justice. And the presidents of the courts. And they do look at their proceedings and then the rather, the judge would rather kind of find that– that’s always the game: the prosecution demands too much, and defenders ask for less, and the judge is somewhere in the middle. And if we don’t make clear that they could be prosecuted themselves, they don’t consider this. They just look how to get out of the situation as good as possible. And that’s simply done with a court– a ruling from their point of view. And this is why it’s important to voice this now, if it doesn’t happen anyway. And maybe one more thing on MFG DW, whatever, you know? I read on your case– is that your case?

Monica Jiang, MD:

David Jungbluth, MD:
And after the public was involved in a bigger way, the behavior of the court changed. Is that true?

Monica Jiang, MD:
No, that can’t be me, because from five to six people being present is not dramatic.

David Jungbluth, MD:
OK, well then I mistook that somehow. There was a case where the judge, the court was very harsh, and there were critical people in the room and they voiced it. And the court kind of moved.

Monica Jiang, MD:
That was Dr. Tribel. And obviously, from what we’ve heard, there was a, the public was admitted.

David Jungbluth, MD:
OK. That apparently shows that the court does not only feel obliged to law, but also to atmospheric vibrations.

Monica Jiang, MD:
And exactly for this reason it was so radically limited in my case, and I think the mask still–

David Jungbluth, MD:
Is it still the case? Still, is it still restricted? I think that was in the beginning in 2021. There’s no restrictions now any more, are there.

Monica Jiang, MD:
No, but the court case started now, in November.

David Jungbluth, MD:
Well sorry. What court is that?

Monica Jiang, MD:
Weinheim (Bergstraße).

David Jungbluth, MD:
And that is restricted to hygiene rules?

Monica Jiang, MD:

David Jungbluth, MD:
What basis is that done on?

Monica Jiang, MD:
On the basis of the director of, the local director, who is also the president of the judge.

David Jungbluth, MD:
It is that the the law… of the court then was that.

Monica Jiang, MD:
It is– it seems to be her own world.

David Jungbluth, MD: [02:10:34]
Well I would ask for the legal basis. Is that in the sense of the law, that the the major, the major laws are ruled by the parliament and not by a judge in… the court in Weinheim? I think the public is in quite quickly here, and that’s one of the basic reasons. She can’t simply exclude the public, for whatever rules she wants to make up.

Monica Jiang, MD:
I know there are quite a few principles that how do not recognize being followed by this court. I think the court in general about the mask, the court cases, those few doctors that, at the top of the list who wrote mask certificates, that’s one thing. There is some, the public is being admitted there. But all the other patients who all face their own court cases, you do not, they don’t go to the press, they have no chance. You don’t read about them; you don’t hear about them. I don’t know. I have a stack of invitations to be a witness in court cases, from people who had mask certificates. As I said, you said before they should be used in current… for the prosecution of crimes, for which there is a large need. It’s not as if everything was right and– you know, there is an urgent need to act. And I think the legal system should look at that, and state, prosecutors and judges as well.

David Jungbluth, MD: [02:12:29]
Ah, of course they’re not interested in that. But it’s interesting to see that just checking why the proceedings are dropped or not dropped, because for a single person, a single case, assuming that there _is_ a condition. That’s not very high, up to two years of all prison, I think. That is actually … not really much, You can get more if you steal something from a shop, for shoplifting. And you can get up to five years, and now is quite low. So usually these proceedings are dropped independent of the content, simply because this is a minority thing.

But if you have 4000 cases, of course it is understandable from the perspective of a prosecution if they do see that they carry on. But if it is about individual patients who just got an attest once, that is absolutely the lowest level of the prosecution. It’s still brought in front of the court. I think, in my view that’s clearly a point that there is some instruction at least indirectly that these lawsuits are going to be made to state examples. If I just go to the supermarket and lift a bottle of spirits, I don’t get punished for that usually. Or if I do a little fraud somewhere. Then it’s quite clearly a way of political justice here. Patients are punished.

Monica Jiang, MD:
Exactly. The systematic prosecution, and it’s been happening since 2020. Some were faster, some courts take longer. But sometimes fines were issued. It was about, just under 5000 euro. You know, it’s incredible.

Viviane Fischer: [02:14:39]
I still see this as the last twitch of a dying system, which maifests here, and that is going to be seen as completely inappropriate in due time, against the background where we just heard about the bad damage that people have after the jabs now. And the inappropriateness is quite clear here.

Monica Jiang, MD: [02:15:07]
Let me just finish very quickly. This autumn, a lot came up, whether it was a mask symposium or the expert opinion of [Dr. Kleinert], a lot came up. And the president of the professional association of pediatricians, [Fischbach], said a big reason for the current wave of infections are the masks, the weakening of the immune system, the non-training of the immune system. It is so obvious from different sides that it is simply… shows that the entire fact to spread and to raise awareness of the facts and to publicize them and then perhaps that may have an impact on the legal profession.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
And children who haven’t been to school for two years, that everyone will realize that their immune system was compromised because it had no normal interaction with an environment of viruses and bacteria, and wasn’t change, should be– that’s an incredibly important fact that should be emphasized much, much, much more. I think that is… a reason for the current flu wave. It’s not just the people who got vaccinated. But those who weren’t vaccinated, it obviously plays a role whether they trained their immune system over the last two years or not. And… you can, you know if they haven’t trained their immune system, then the mask protected them, to contradict. We… don’t know enough about it. I think we have … we hav different pathogens beneath the mask. And there was, you know, all the mass of bacteria that grew underneath the masks, you could see when did they took it off. They wore it for entire days at a stretch.

Monica Jiang, MD:
Well for their immune system, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx is very important as psychological pressure the fear, the fear for punishment, the fear for exclusion, not being let into areas, being attacked, lack of breath, it’s endless, really. And the facts are all on the table, and it is now time to really look at this and analyze it. And for the people to refuse it. And that altogether, things are cleaned up with these myths and these ideas that were created. It was simply constructed for two and a half years.

Viviane Fischer: [02:18:29]
I want to say that even without masks and vaccinations, there is, it’s a fact that you are taken down by a cold. And I think we should take colds as something normal and not always see whether it was made worse by masks or injections.

Did you take your Vitamin D supplements?

Viviane Fischer:
We say no, but I think the immune system works quite well normally. And it’s sometimes quiet beneficial to be taken out of circulation for a while.

Well, Dr. Jiang, we have the next guest here. I want to say that you have a very good background. You have two windows there. It looks like you have golden wings, you know, suitable for the season.

Monica Jiang, MD:
Thank you very much.

Viviane Fischer:
Thank you for explaining in great detail what you’ve been through, and we will follow your case closely, and see what has happened, perhaps, in the future. And perhaps also raise awareness in the public about all these things. because I think it will be be even more embarrassing.

Monica Jiang, MD:
Exactly. The masks are one thing, but it’s different… measures around it and different, lots of different problems which are all interlinked. And I think it’s important to have publicity and clarity throughout everything. I’d like to take the opportunity to thank you for all the work that you have been doing for ages, since 2020, with your Committee. It’s helped me very, very much to look at the data, the studies, and get the sources, and the people, the speakers. It’s important to get all this knowledge out, and provide opportunities, and also have an archive. If things are clear up, we have to know who did what and when.

Viviane Fischer:
There will be news on that topic soon. Thank you very much for joining us and keeping us up to date. Thank you. Have a nice Christmas.

Monica Jiang, MD:
Thank you.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
Bye bye.

Monica Jiang, MD:
And you, too.


Corona Investigative Committee, 135th Session on December 23rd, 2022

Dr. Lee Vliet, MD

(Original language: English)

[Transcript from Team + Ed]

Viviane Fischer: [02:21:00]
Now we switch to English. I’m happy to talk to Dr. Lee Vliet. Are you here with us?

Lee Vliet, MD:
Sorry, I just had to unmute. Thank you so much.

Viviane Fischer:
Perfect. Great that you’re here with us. You’re the president and chief executive officer of the Truth for Health Foundation. And yes, so you’ve gone through quite a bit or have experienced quite a bit in the last two years. It would be great if you could maybe give us a little bit more about your background, and then what… you’re currently up to, or what you can contribute to the sort of… excavation of the truth.

Lee Vliet, MD:

Dr. Lee Vliet, MD

Well thank you. Thank you so much for having me. It is an honor, and it’s particularly an honor to meet virtually Dr, Wolfgang Wodarg, and I hope I pronounce your name correctly. I have followed your work and been so impressed with what you’ve been doing. Thank you for your courage and your dedication. My background there has been preventive and climacteric medicine, and actually I’ve spent a lot of years in internat– coming to Europe, because the European conferences were always so far ahead of the United States in the field of reproductive medicine, climacteric medicine, menopause, the aging male, and all of the areas that… I’ve worked in for the last 38 years.

But what began in February, 2020, it’s actually been three years nonstop that I have been working on all of this, because it was very clear quickly in February, 2020, when they announced the new covid-19 viral illness, that something was amiss. And I found– in the first afternoon looking online– I found the study from 2005 that Fauci’s agency had published in the Journal of Virology, which is an NIH publication, that talked about the success treating SARS-CoV-1 with chloroquin and his sister drug hydroxychloroquin. And it made such sense that what the article in– published in 2005, but remember they were doing the research in 2003 and 2004– and it… stopped the virus from entering the cell, and it stopped the virus — SARS-CoV-1 — from replicating, because it was a zinc ionophore, and… there were lots, there was a lot of good information in that first article.

And I thought, ok, then so we’ve got a way to address this. And then I was interacting with other colleagues, a lot of us were very active on Twitter at the time, before most of us were cancelled and– by 2021. And so I… actually started using the early treatment protocol and writing national editorials for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in March of 2020, about the suppression of hydroxychloroquin and the fact that something was odd when we were getting letters from all 50 state medical boards in the United States directing doctors not to use these drugs.

And so my antenna– I’ve spent a long career fighting against big medicine, so this was not new. And one of the things that were so clear was this orchestrated attack on any early treatment. And then pharmacists were having the audacity in March of 2020 to block my prescriptions. Well, that sent me apoplectic. So I started doing editorials nationally, radio interviews, talking about all of this. And Senator Ron Johnson heard my first radio interview, or not my first, but heard one of my radio interviews in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the end of March, 2020, picked up the phone and out of the blue called me and said “Dr. Vliet, what’s going on where doctors can’t prescribe hydroxychloroquin? We’ve gotten the donations of 76 million doses sitting in the national stockpile that President Trump wanted to disperse to doctors, clinics and hospitals around the country.

Well, I gave him an earful about what was going on and how doctors were being censored and directed and threatened by the state medical board. And literally from there, I was in the background under the radar, working with him getting him the medical information, helping to draft some letters that ultimately went President Trump. He asked for my help in getting doctor signatures on a letter he wanted to send the president. And he asked for 100 doctors, and in 48 hours, we had 1305 signatures on the letter that Senator Johnson and I together wrote.

But it came out from him, because I could give the medical input to help him. And then it… fine by me. I was pleased that he was taking the political lead. And so he gave that petition to President Trump. And by May of 2020, I had prepared with my pharmacist colleague, research pharmacist, we had prepared a full document, documentation package and proposal for President Trump, showing– we had a legal letter, we had the medical justification, we had the safety analysis comparing hydroxychloroquin to over-the-counter Tylenol and NSAIDs and proton pump inhibitors, the acid-reducing medicines in the US that are sold over the counter. We– hydroxychloroquin had a better safety profile than any of those three over-the-counter drugs.

And we documented all of that, put together the proposal for President Trump to use his executive authority in May, 2020, to declare hydroxychloroquin over-the-counter and bypass the FDA sabotage of access to the drug. That did not happen, as all of you know. And fast forward, it was clear that the agenda was to stop early treatment by anyone– although many of us went ahead and did it anyway– and push everyone into what we call in Arizona the box canyon. They used to round up wild mustangs and herd them into a box canyon, from which they had no escape. The box canyon was the vaccine. So… which we now, we know, of course, is not a traditional vaccine.

So we were fighting on that front all through 2020. Then in 2021, Dr. McCullough asked me to meet with– and I was part of his team of
covid-19 doctors. I was in touch with them. By August of 2020, he and I wrote the Early Treatment Patient Guide and gave that material to AAPS– it’s still on their website.
[ ]

And that was one of the first patient guides which hss been one of– my focus is patient education and empowering the patients. So then we worked together on all of that. And Dr. McCullough asked me to meet with him, Stephen Frost, Roger Hodgkinson and Mike Yeaden in the beginning of July, 2021 when Dr Yeadon had some _serious_ information about the reproductive damage. And they, Dr. Frost and Dr. Hodgkinson from Canada were looking for an organization to help Dr. Hodgkinson’s concept of a Stop-the-Shot campaign. And he’d been turned down by two previous organizations that were fearful of the political consequences.

When Dr. Yeadon talked to me about– I was wondering why Dr McCullough had me there at first, because I’m a practicing physician, so not… one of the academic leaders. And so, at any rate, when Dr. Yeadon went through what they knew 12 years ago about the damage to the ovaries and testicles, and he was concerned about reproductive effects and fertility with the covid shots, I said, “Wait a minute, you guys, I now know why _I’m_ here.” I said, “This is my work in medicine for 38 years. If you damage the ovaries and testicles, you’re not just damaging _reproductive_ potential; you’re damaging hormone systems that affect every organ system in the body.” The integrated approach to climacteric medicine in the European model has always been looking at the way that the reproductive hormones affect every function, including brain function, cardiac function, immune system regulation and hundreds of other functions throughout the body. It’s not just focused on reproduction. I said, “We have got to do this. If you’ve got that data, we have got to do this.”

So Truth for Health Foundation, I had activated it in May. It was started 15 years ago for a different fight in medicine, with the same kind of suppression of effective treatment in a different area. And then we went inactive in the economic crash of 2008. So I felt literally I– some of you may not have the same faith tradition that I do, but I felt clearly that God spoke to me and said, “Lee, you have to activate the Foundation. You have the foundation; activate it. This is the time.” And that was May 3rd, 2021, 14 years to the day from the day I filed for the tax ID number in 2007. And I activated it, talked to Dr. McCullough, all the other doctors I was working with, invited them all to be part of it. And we would use this public charity to take the message of truth to the public.

And we… we launched in June, reorganized launched in June. July, we started planning the Stop the Shot campaign; and August 4th, had our first of three press conferences in August, on Stop the Shot. Dr. McCullough, Dr. Yeadon, Dr. Hodkinson and many other– Dr. Alexander, many other international experts spoke at our first three press conferences on Stop the Shot. We got shut down on our mail system for having run that campaign. We ramped up and started another, and continued our fight.

By the fall of 2021, it was clear that the US military was being damaged by the complications of the covid shot and the unlawful covid mandates. And many of you know Todd Calendar. He, he’s on our legal advisory council. And I’m a medical consultant for his law firm, and we have worked closely together for the last two years on all of this. And he said, “Lee, we have serious problems in the military; I’ve got thousands of people that need help. We need a voice. Can Truth for Health Foundation be a platform for the military?”

So that occurred in September of 2021. In July of 2021 we got asked by a different attorney to assist with hospital rescues of patients trapped in the hospitals on the covid death protocol, which goes back by the way– for those of you that don’t know American medicine and the government control that was instituted with Obamacare in 2010, Ezekiel Emanuel wrote an article, 1999, that was published, I believe in the Lancet. The 2009 article was published I think in the British Medical Journal, of course hiding it overseas so that most Americans don’t see it.

And he wrote about the necessity of doing away with the oath of the Hipocrates and focusing on the collective, rationing medical care for those over 50 and under 15 — because they didn’t have a complete life and therefore they were not worthy of medical care. Or, those over 50 should be rationed because they’ve already had their life. That was the architect of Obamacare writing those papers 20 years earlier and 10 years earlier. And that grew out of the Liverpool Protocol in England, which was accelerated euthanasia, which many of you know about.

So Ezekiel Emanuel is the, in the shadows advising the Biden administration. And the same architect of the “Complete Lives System”, rationing of medical care for the elderly, was now the covid policy expert for the US– in the background. And that is part of the genesis of the covid death protocols in the hospitals. So when we got asked to assist with that, we created a covid care strategy team of lawyers, nurses, specialty doctors in different fields.
And literally when people reached out to us– and they reached out to us from all over the country– we go in with a legal and medical team. We assist the family in getting access to the records. We review the records, real time, and our legal nurse consultant is advising the family, helping them get attorneys and medical experts to guide them. We have been conferenced in, on phone calls between family members and hospital staff, when the family was denied access _except_ by phone. And we’ve been conference in on those phone calls, not always with the knowledge of the doctors and nurses in the hospital. But the family brought us in, and the attorneys would bring us in.

And I have personally heard conversations that literally, actually a shock to me to my core, in the abusiveness towards patients, particularly the unvaccinated, the cruelty, the lies and the way in which doctors and nurses have been speaking to patients in _our_ experience is truly chilling. And we’re literally been fighting on that front since we were asked to start that team. And to this day, we are still getting calls from families who are, have loved ones trapped in the hospital. They are using provisions from the last act of President Obama in late 2016, after the out– the surprise outcome of the 2016 election when President Trump got elected.

End of November, beginning of December, President Obama did two things that set the stage for what we’re seeing in the United States: the CARES Act was…– I’m sorry, the Cures Act in 2016; 2020 was the CARES Act. President Obama also appointed Dr. Rick Bright the head of BARDA [Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority] in that late stage of his administration, after they knew President Trump had won the election and Hillary Clinton did not, and they lost control.

If you fast-forward to 2020, Rick Barter, I’m sorry, Rick Bright, director of BARDA was the person who later bragged about sabotaging President Trump’s desire to make hydroxychloroquin available. And he is, there is an article in which he is quoted bragging about the for fact that he personally wrote the FDA language in a way that would restrict its outpatient use, contradicting the orders of our commander in chief and president of the United States.

So by setting Rick Bright in place in late 2016 with a known agenda of what he believed and what his role was, I think set the stage for part of the sabotage _we_ faced in 2020 with lack of access to hydroxychloroquin. A lot of that happened before we knew from Brazil in about April, 2020, that ivermectin also worked. Well, you all know what happened with the media discrediting both drugs and mocking them and persecuting doctors for prescribing them.

Under the Remdesivir protocols in the hospitals and… stop me if I’m saying things that you already know all the details. But what we discovered in the summer of 2021– and I wrote an editorial about it– that the CARES Act set up all kinds of waivers and immunities for hospitals in the U– across the US and incentive payments for them to only use the “approved” covid protocol in hospitals. The “approved” protocol, of course, was: any patient coming into the hospital ER for any reason got a PCR test. And we all know the flaws of that.

In addition, we had whistleblowers reporting to us that hospitals could, their labs could set the cycle threshold, so many hospitals were actually increasing the cycle threshold above what the CDC recommended, and almost virtually guaranteeing an 80 to 90 percent false positive rate, which in turn they get a covid diagnosis, they admit them to the covid floor, they start restricting fluids, they start restricting food, they give them Remdesivir — and we know what happens. The kidneys start to fail, the fluid backs up in the lungs, you’re dehydrated, you can’t circulate blood adequately for oxygenation, and the patient’s oxygen [saturations] drop. Voila, another ka-ching on the cash register. And the patients are put on a ventilator bringing _another_ incentive payment to the hospitals. The hospitals were getting– and I’m sure you’ve seen the statistic by now– but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that regulate so much of this in the US is paying incentives of 20 percent on the entire hospital bill for hospitals that use Remdesivir.

So that means if the hospital bill– it isn’t just a 20 percent bonus on the cost of the medicine. It’s a 20 percent bonus on the whole bill. So if the, depending on how long the patient’s in the hospital, the bill can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. The attorneys Dan Watkins and Michael Hamilton– who were the first two in the United States to actually take the lawsuits against hospitals forward, although many of us in medicine have been screaming for that for the last two years– finally In September, 2021, they had the courage to take it forward. and their specific legal causes of action, this is from their press release, and I quote: “wrongful death, constructive fraud, violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act– that’s in California– and medical negligence and battery.

They are taking the cases forward against three hospitals and doctors in Fresno, California. And so they have state law in California they can use, as well as federal law. And “this landmark case”, again I’m quoting from their press release, because I interviewed them ahead of their press release and then we aired the radio whistleblower report after their press release, quote: “this landmark case alleges that plaintiffs were subjected to medical deception and given a protocol by the defendants the centerpiece of which is the poisonous and deadly drug Remdesivir. Plaintiffs were not properly informed regarding the dangers of the drug and were instead placed on a protocol which was medically unnecessary, causing most of the plaintiffs to die a horrific death” end quote.

And all of you know that, but I wanted to quote from their press release, because Truth for Health Foundation gave a grant to support the cost of their litigation. now we are not fully funding it; they are raising funds separately from many sources. But we did feel this was an important step for the public charity human defense, human rights defense organization, to give a programmatic grant to support their efforts.

Since that time, Truth for Health Foundation is taking separately with a different law firm two wrongful-death cases forward, on more targeted legal issues that help us bypass the immunity provided under the CARES Act and the Cures Act with tackling Remdesivir head on. So we have engaged– the Foundation is committing donor funds in a programmatic lawsuit to take forward two cases, one in Wisconsin and one in Maryland, on wrongful deaths on more targeted legal strategies that we think have a good chance of being successful by bypassing some of the immunity provisions that the Remdesivir cases face.

Now all of us believe that we need to fight on all fronts, and we need to take as many cases forward with as many strategies as possible. What has been very valuable about working together with Warner Mendenhall’s law from on these cases that the foundation is funding is that we have a full medical team working with the law firm, pointing out areas that _we_ see medically are violations of medical practice and medical ethics and patient care standards; and then asking the lawyers to help us find a legal strategy.

So working together as a medical legal team between the Foundation and the law firm and we have other attorneys on our legal advisory council who have fought similar issues in hospitals for 20 years or more, not just covid. And so our volunteer legal advisers on the Foundation’s advisory council then assessed the law firm that’s actually going to litigate the cases. And we’ve got the legal nurse consultants and the medical and scientific experts on our advisory council. Most of the people are listed on our website,
so you can see the diversity of people that we bring to the team. And this has been a very… significant project, and we have spent many, many hours in legal strategy meetings, looking at ways we can do an end-run around the opposition and the obstacles, and try and find justice for these patients.

Then we also take the approach of trying the cases in the court of public opinion, with press conferences and our Whistleblower Report radio shows that air daily Monday through Friday 12 noon and 12 midnight, Eastern time on the America Out Loud talk radio. Once they are broadcast live, then they go to podcast on all the global networks. So you can look at the resource of the legal topics we have under the Whistleblower Report series that the Foundation is funding. We have the vaccine report we welcome all of you vaccine experts to talk with us on the Whistleblower Report. Mike Yeaden in– and Sasha Latipova and Hedley Reece and several other international people are on the team– Dr. Jancey Lindsay– are on the team, doing the vaccine reports under the Whistleblower Report series. We have the medical report, legal report, military report, vaccine report. And the faith report looking at how the churches are being co-opted by the politicized federal directives, putting government as God instead of biblical teachings.

So we’re tackling all of the institutions that are betraying their oath, that are harming the public, and a multi-pronged approach, that as one band of warriors, we… are doing our best to do our part with the generosity of our donors. And i… want to say at the outset, that given some of the scandals that have arisen around public charities in the United States, this Foundation and my commitment to our donors has been that it will be run absolutely by the book, on the IRS guidelines. I take no compensation from the donor money; I don’t feel that’s right. I will earn my livelihood through my hours in my separate, independent medical practice that has no connection with the Foundation.

And in fact, I rarely even mention it, because I don’t want there to be a conflict. So most of our advisors, in fact I would say all of the physicians and scientists working with Truth for Health Foundation are working _pro bono,_ because we believe that it’s the right thing to do, and our donor money is used in the legal defense arena, and in the educational programs and resources to help the public. The other major difference with our organization: there are so many good, strong organizations that are doing medical and scientific programs to educate the public. We’re, our focus is to get into the grassroots at the community level and empower patients and citizens with the tools that they need in thir community and in their families to defend themselves against the medical tyranny and the lack of medical freedom.

So most of our educational resources are written with the idea of being layman’s guides, fact sheets, layman’s treatment guides. We have the scientific references, but our goal is to write these treatment guides: The Vaccine Injury Treatment Guide, The Early CoViD Home Treatment Guide, Radiation Injury Treatment Guide. Fact sheets on how to stay out of the hospital and save your life. All of these materials are designed to be written at the high school or tenth-grade reading level, we hope, so that the average person who doesn’t have any medical training can understand them. and they’re written in a step-wise way, to give people a step-by-step guide. We call them your road maps to recovery. And then we have several citizens’ initiatives: the vaccine– a Civilian Vaccine Injury Treatment Guide, but the Citizens’ Vaccine Injury Reporting System, because the CDC isn’t disclosing their data. And as we build our database and have the experts analyze it, we disclose that to the public.

We also have the Oath Breaker Project, where citizens can report those in medicine, law, ministry, military, government who are breaking their oath to serve the public. And we have the Sentinel Event Reporting Project, to encourage citizens to file complaints against the hospitals through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. And then there are the criminal complaint forms that Todd Calendar’s firm designed for us to use to guide citizens how to file _pro se_ litigation, because there simply aren’t enough attorneys to go around.

So I think I can best summarize our philosophy as: instead of doing a presentation that gives people a fish for a meal, our goal is to teach them how to fish, so that they can go and take these tools and serve their families and communities and teach others.

So that’s a quick overview of the broad approaches and the multi-pronged strategies that we’ve been using. And I have the interview that I’ve shared with Corwin for all of you, the audio interview with attorneys Dan Watkins and Michael Hamilton, so that when you would like to listen to it, you can have that resource, go back and hear what they said in September at the time of their press conference and press release. And we were honored to help support the litigation, and as the donor generosity continues, we will continue to do that.

So the next step would be to invite them back to talk in more detail about the legal strategies and what they have encountered in the months since they filed the lawsuit. I know that they are taking cases forward in about six other states in the USA, developing legal teams to do that. so I hope that you’ll be able to be successful in having them join you for another program. But I wanted to at least give you the medical input on what we’ve been doing and how we’ve been working with many different law firms and lawyers to to find ways to hold them accountable for their actions.

And our press conferences on all of this are archived on our website. We’ve had many fired– there been about a dozen fired for medical freedom, fired for freedom, holding hospitals accountable, exposing the incentive payments, exposing recordings from hospital executives colluding to withhold nutrition and fluids. I mean, it is really very chilling when we’ve got the whistle blowers coming forward with all of this. So I know all of you know the enormity of the problem and you’re fighting on many fronts. We are honored to be here and… representing the Foundation. And if we can be of assistance, we’re happy to do that, happy to have any of you experts on the Whistleblower Report. And let’s make it even more of an international effort. So thank you for having me.

Viviane Fischer: [02:56:54]
[That’s] really like a very impressive, you know, list of activities. It’s really a multi-multi-prong approach, I can see. Like you’re basically a powerhouse for all the kinds of various activities that one can unfold in this whole matter. And I think it’s really great that you provide the patients or victims of, well, the… injections and… whoever else might be affected like relatives and so on with this, as you said, like teach them how to fish themselves, papers, all that. I think it’s a very, important thing. I just have one question: like, with regards to these Remdesivir cases, is there, have they been accepted? How… have they gone forward? Is… there, or have they been a rejected immediately, kicked out of court? Or like what’s the… status of the case at this point in time?

Lee Vliet, MD:
Well, to… be honest, I think Dan and Mike have been so overwhelmed, it’s a little difficult reaching them to… get the update. But my understanding, in the last communication I had a few weeks ago, is that they are moving forward, and they are moving the cases forward with state-based attorneys in other states. They have mentioned Arizona, Texas, Kentucky. And there are about three others in the model that they are using. And they _are_ going after, they are hitting Remdesivir head-on, on those legal causes of action that I named very quickly: wrongful death, constructive fraud, violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, medical negligence and battery.

So my understanding is: they are moving forward. As you know, that’s an uphill battle against big medicine, big pharma, big government and the tech censorship. Now what _our_ approach is, is a little different. We are taking, we have two very narrowly-defined cases, as I mentioned, in two different states, and we have whistleblowers that are giving us information to help support those. But our cases are focused on the violation of state statutes on “Do not intubate” directives from the patient and “Do not resuscitate”, wrongful, illegal DNR orders, as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and wrongful death, use of medicines other than Remdesivir that were improperly used, that hastened death.

An example: one patient who was not diabetic was given insulin on top of Midazolam, fentanyl presidex and morphine, and was dead a few hours after the last doses. Insulin was not medically indicated, and that is a wrongful death on misuse of other medications, separate. Patient did not get Remdesivir. And because there was no Remdesivir used and the patient was not on a ventilator, we have other causes of action.

And then there is a different case where the patient _did_ get Remdesivir, but that’s not the focused cause of legal action that the attorneys feel is the way to take the case forward in that state. So our thought is– and we’re… also taking forward two cases that– let me… clarify. The Foundation offers legal defense grants to individuals. And in particular our focus has been on military service members who are being punished and retaliated against over the unlawful covid-shot mandates, and illegal, unlawful testing and masking mandates. Because all of those are experimental-use products, and you cannot lawfully mandate them. So legal defense grants. And our military is much more vulnerable than the civilian population, because they can’t simply leave a job and go get another job. If they … refuse an order, they risk being court-marshaled and imprisoned.

So our priority with limited donor money was to help support them, because they defend us. So we’ve made a big initiative to support the military with individual grants where we could. In addition to that, we made a decision, the board of directors and the executive team voted, to approve my recommendation that we take two separate military plaintiff cases forward as a program lawsuit by the Foundation, which meant the individuals were not given an individual grant, but the Foundation was coming in to say, “This is so important for all military and all civilians that this is what the IRS allows the public charity to engage in — legal defense of core human and civil rights secured by law.”

So the Foundation is coming in to pay for those two cases. One has been filed in California; one is being filed in Texas in January. So there… are those four cases on the, this front. And then we have engaged Warner Mendenhall’s firm to take forward two cases on the False Claims Act violations, where hospitals are making fraudulent claims to the government. And the Foundation can be the relater that takes the case forward to recover money on behalf of the public and the US taxpayers.

So we have, right at the moment the foundation is taking six different cases forward in six different jurisdictions with different purposes, and we’re hoping to get to first base on several of those. So that’s… been the added legal strategy, separate from the Remdesivir cases. That was a little longer answer to your question, but it brought up some things I wanted to be sure I mentioned. Because I think we’ve got to go after a lot of different legal fronts. Sorry, Dr. Wodarg.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [03:04:44]
Yes I’m sorry. May have a question? For sure you know about the recovery studies that they did with… hydroxychloroquin, where they overdosed it enormously and killed a lot of people with that. Do you, is there some, is there, I think they did it to, just to… blame hydroxychloroquin that it’s not good for, so that it should no longer be used. They just misused this, and then they stopped it when it came out.

But do you… deal with it? Are there cases which you follow up? Because those people, they were victims of a strategy, of a very bad strategy. They were… presented as… victims of covid and they were victims, like with Remdesivir, they were victims of overdosing a drug. And I think it’s a very, it was a very dramatic thing. Do you deal with this, too?

Lee Vliet, MD: [03:05:44]
Yes. Actually we came out swinging on that study. I had several editorials about the _deliberate_ misuse of the drug. And in fact it was so shocking and so outrageous that… we actually spoke out a lot on that, as in every venue we could. And remember all of us are getting censored, so it’s difficult to break through the mainstream media control. But we just keep fighting. And slowly, I think, we’re slowly turning the Titanic.

But let me say this: about hydroxychloroquin, I mean, I’ve had patients on it for years. And most practicing physicians have… many patients on it. They’re being treated for rheumatoid and lupus–

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:

Lee Vliet, MD:
–at doses of 400 to 800 milligrams a day for decades with no problems. The American College of Rheumatologists don’t even require a baseline EKG before rheumatologists prescribe it for lupus or rheumatoid. Now what’s interesting, because my practices is preventive and climateric medicine, a lot of the patients I see that have rheumatoid or lupus also have endocrine problems. But someone may have already put them on hydroxychloroquin, but I started using it aggressively in March of 2020 in the early treatment of covid. And I was digging into the literature in many ways as fast as I could. And what I found– and… I still encounter doctors that are shocked by this– what I found was we have forty years of data on hydroxychloroquin as an anti-diabetes drug that improves glucose A1C and lipids. And a very well done study in 2014, published in the US, showed improvements in all of those markers. And then the more I dug into it, lo and behold, it’s being used as a repurposed drug to treat multiple cancers, as an adjunct. And they have excellent studies on hydroxychloroquin reducing prostate cancer metastasis.

So with all of that extra digging that I… just hadn’t had really a need to look into to that degree, before all of the negative garbage about how dangerous this drug was, I… have been using it much more extensively in my practice. I use it to treat inflammatory pain from endometriosis from acute flareups of auto-immune thyroiditis. I’m using it to transact vaccine injury. I’m u– all of this.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
I know this because I was do– I was working in tropical medicine and I was using it against malaria as prophylaxis also, when it was still working. And I used it in rheumatism, with rheumatism too, and this is no… problem. It’s… very clear. But what they did, they did not take the normal dose, which was 600 milligrams a day or something like that, but they took more than two gram[s] in the… recovery study. And with that they killed people.

Lee Vliet, MD:

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
They had cardiac arrests and all this, and they did not think of the favism of G6 phosphate glucose [dilutro…] I don’t, cannot spell it in English, but you know, this enzyme [G6PD] which is missing there in the black population. They know it. In the black population, there are 20 percent, in some countries 30 percent of the people that don’t have this enzyme. And when they get… when do you don’t watch out, you also have hemolysis with them.

Lee Vliet, MD:

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
And this is very dangerous, and you have to– so this is a contra-indication. But in [these] studies which were done in the beginning of 2020, nobody mentioned it. They were not excluded in the studies, so when you–

Lee Vliet, MD:
You’re right. It was… in fact, didn’t the government of Brazil investigate the… researchers on that study?

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
Yes, but there was a study in Great Britain also, recovery study. And there were… criminal studies done where they were highly overdosed. And this is… just to… make a bad impression [of] hydroxychloroquin. They just misused this drug to say, “Oh, you shouldn’t take it.”

Lee Vliet, MD:
You’re exactly right. In fact, that is the true evil of all of this that we’ve been seeing. Our governments have knowingly killed people to justify the ends of total control.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:

Lee Vliet, MD:
And that… is so evident to me, I can’t see how anyone can look at the data and think otherwise. It was intentional. And Dr. Yeaden has talked about this extensively that they have– and Dr. Lindsey, many others who know the history of the mRNA platform development, knew the lipid nano– they _knew_ the toxicity of the lipid
nano-particles in all the animal species studied from fifteen years ago. They knew the damage of the spike protein, and they continued. You cannot interpret it any other way, than this was intent to harm.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
Yes, even the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute in Germany, they published the work, some… publication about the spike protein, its toxicity. They took isolated spike proteins and they… used them and they injected them and they found out the hemagglutination of the– blood clots and such things, and syncytia forming out of many cells. And all this. they published it in January 2021.

And the same time this started, giving those shots, where this toxic spike protein would be produced within the people. So they… were schizophrenic. On one hand, they said, “Oh, spike protein is very dangerous, and it’s on the surface of the corona virus. It’s very dangerous.” And on the other hand, they gave the– on the other hand, they… gave it, and they… make it clinical– not clinical trials, but they made laboratory studies and published that it is dangerous. So they knew exactly what they were doing.

Lee Vliet, MD:
Exactly right. Dr. Wodarg, I– you know, it’s… difficult for people of conscience to wrap their minds around the fact that the reality is: this has been a malevolent, diabolical design from the beginning. And it’s difficult for normal people to wrap their minds around that. Which is why I think it’s important in _our_ work that we talk about the intent, and how long they knew the damage,

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:

Lee Vliet, MD:
long before they rolled this out. And we will continue to hammer that, to– and I will continue this fight to my dying breath. This has been, this in part– patient advocacy and doing the right thing for the patient and honoring the oath of a Hipocrates to serve the patient is something that I’ve held dear for my whole career in medicine, not just the corona fight. And… I’ve spent a lot of years going up against narratives that were harmful to patients and drugs that were harmful to patients, and misrepresentation of the data.

And I’ve said all along– you know, in the US, everybody understands about insurance contracts. And doctors are contracted with insurance and you’ve got to file your insurance. I resigned from all insurance contracts in 1986, because I said, in my first year of practice, I cannot serve two masters. I cannot serve what the insurance companies are telling me to do and do the right thing for the patient, because most of the time they’ve been in conflict. And I just said to my husband,
“You know, I’m really sorry. I’m just starting my practice and I’m just starting to make money again after eight years of training, but I can’t do this. I can’t sleep at night.”
So we found a way forward. We just spoke to the patients. And I spent a career advocating for the patients. I always said, I answer to God and I answer to the patients. And there’s no governor that’s going to tell me when I can and cannot prescribed for a patient something they need.

So I just think all of us in medicine need to stand up for the oath that we took to serve the patient. That has been the tradition since Hipocrates, and it’s all throughout the old and new testament of the Bible, and _that’s_ our obligation. And the physicians that don’t do that are going to answer for it on judgment day. And if you don’t answer on, in _this_ world, you will eventually. And I just ask you to look yourselves in the mirror and ask, “How can I knowingly continue to harm people? These are human beings who deserve our compassion and our care.”

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
You’re right.

Viviane Fischer:
… Thanks so much for your presentation. And I think we’re definitely going in the right direction and it would be great to get an update of what’s been going on in your activities like in the near future. And we’re going to link the… statements by yout legal team, on our Telegram channel, so people can take a look at that.

Lee Vliet, MD:
Great. Thank you so much. And may I suggest another expert for you to consider bringing on? Todd Calendar and his researcher Lisa McGee have uncovered some staggering information. She has done extraordinary digging into databases that we didn’t know existed. And this is just in the last two weeks. I’ve been working closely with them on what Lisa has diligently and with a great deal of dedication and perseverance, has uncovered. That she’s the first to say, we need experts, medical and scientific, to look at all of this and help make sense of it and explain it and put it to good use.

So I would just suggest that you might consider that. I’ll be happy to link up Corwyn with Todd and Lisa so that you could perhaps have them on if you decide you want to pursue the information they’ve just uncovered in the last couple of weeks.

Viviane Fischer:
Super. Sounds very interesting. So Corwyn will get in touch with you about it and then we can… super. Yeah so, Merry Christmas to you. It’s–

Lee Vliet, MD:
Thank you. Merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, Happy new year. And just all of you, thank you so much. I spent some wonderful Christmases in Germany and enjoy it. In fact I still have some of the of things I bought at Oberammergau. And I spent many wonderful Christmases in Italy down in Sorento and Florence. And I have some things that I got there. I think Europe does Christmas in a very beautiful way, and I just hope all– and the Christmas markets. So I’m envious of all of you, having fun at your Christmas markets and the season. So have a wonderful season and God bless you all and thank you so much for having me.

Viviane Fischer:
Thanks so much for coming on.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:[03:18:34]
Thank you, too.

Lee Vliet, MD:

Viviane Fischer: [03:18:37]


Imprint / Privacy Policy / Contact Send / support

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookie name Active


Die Betreiber dieser Seiten nehmen den Schutz Ihrer persönlichen Daten sehr ernst. Wir behandeln Ihre personenbezogenen Daten vertraulich und entsprechend der gesetzlichen Datenschutzvorschriften sowie dieser Datenschutzerklärung. Die Nutzung unserer Webseite ist in der Regel ohne Angabe personenbezogener Daten möglich. Soweit auf unseren Seiten personenbezogene Daten (beispielsweise Name, Anschrift oder E-Mail-Adressen) erhoben werden, erfolgt dies, soweit möglich, stets auf freiwilliger Basis. Diese Daten werden ohne Ihre ausdrückliche Zustimmung nicht an Dritte weitergegeben. Wir weisen darauf hin, dass die Datenübertragung im Internet (z.B. bei der Kommunikation per E-Mail) Sicherheitslücken aufweisen kann. Ein lückenloser Schutz der Daten vor dem Zugriff durch Dritte ist nicht möglich.
Datenschutzerklärung für die Nutzung von Google Analytics
Diese Website nutzt Funktionen des  Webanalysedienstes Google Analytics. Anbieter ist die Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. Google Analytics verwendet sog. „Cookies“. Das sind Textdateien, die auf Ihrem Computer gespeichert werden und die eine Analyse der Benutzung der Website durch Sie ermöglichen. Die durch den Cookie erzeugten Informationen über Ihre Benutzung dieser Website werden in der Regel an einen Server von Google in den USA übertragen und dort gespeichert. Im Falle der Aktivierung der IP-Anonymisierung auf dieser Webseite wird Ihre IP-Adresse von Google jedoch innerhalb von Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union oder in anderen Vertragsstaaten des Abkommens über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum zuvor gekürzt. Nur in Ausnahmefällen wird die volle IP-Adresse an einen Server von Google in den USA übertragen und dort gekürzt. Im Auftrag des Betreibers dieser Website wird Google diese Informationen benutzen, um Ihre Nutzung der Website auszuwerten, um Reports über die Websiteaktivitäten zusammenzustellen und um weitere mit der Websitenutzung und der Internetnutzung verbundene Dienstleistungen gegenüber dem Websitebetreiber zu erbringen. Die im Rahmen von Google Analytics von Ihrem Browser übermittelte IP-Adresse wird nicht mit anderen Daten von Google zusammengeführt. Sie können die Speicherung der Cookies durch eine entsprechende Einstellung Ihrer Browser-Software verhindern; wir weisen Sie jedoch darauf hin, dass Sie in diesem Fall gegebenenfalls nicht sämtliche Funktionen dieser Website vollumfänglich werden nutzen können. Sie können darüber hinaus die Erfassung der durch das Cookie erzeugten und auf Ihre Nutzung der Website bezogenen Daten (inkl. Ihrer IP-Adresse) an Google sowie die Verarbeitung dieser Daten durch Google verhindern, indem sie das unter dem folgenden Link verfügbare Browser-Plugin herunterladen und installieren:
Datenschutzerklärung für die Nutzung von Google +1
Unsere Seiten nutzen Funktionen von Google +1. Anbieter ist die Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043,  USA. Erfassung und Weitergabe von Informationen: Mithilfe der Google +1-Schaltfläche können Sie Informationen weltweit veröffentlichen. über die Google +1-Schaltfläche erhalten Sie und andere Nutzer personalisierte Inhalte von Google und unseren Partnern. Google speichert sowohl die Information, dass Sie für einen Inhalt +1 gegeben haben, als auch Informationen über die Seite, die Sie beim Klicken auf +1 angesehen haben. Ihre +1 können als Hinweise zusammen mit Ihrem Profilnamen und Ihrem Foto in Google-Diensten, wie etwa in Suchergebnissen oder in Ihrem Google-Profil, oder an anderen Stellen auf Websites und Anzeigen im Internet eingeblendet werden. Google zeichnet Informationen über Ihre +1-Aktivitäten auf, um die Google-Dienste für Sie und andere zu verbessern. Um die Google +1-Schaltfläche verwenden zu können, benötigen Sie ein weltweit sichtbares, öffentliches Google-Profil, das zumindest den für das Profil gewählten Namen enthalten muss. Dieser Name wird in allen Google-Diensten verwendet. In manchen Fällen kann dieser Name auch einen anderen Namen ersetzen, den Sie beim Teilen von Inhalten über Ihr Google-Konto verwendet haben. Die Identität Ihres Google- Profils kann Nutzern angezeigt werden, die Ihre E-Mail-Adresse kennen oder über andere identifizierende Informationen von Ihnen verfügen. Verwendung der erfassten Informationen: Neben den oben erläuterten Verwendungszwecken werden die von Ihnen bereitgestellten Informationen gemäß den geltenden Google-Datenschutzbestimmungen genutzt. Google veröffentlicht möglicherweise zusammengefasste Statistiken über die +1-Aktivitäten der Nutzer bzw. gibt diese an Nutzer und Partner weiter, wie etwa Publisher, Inserenten oder verbundene Websites.
Widerspruch Werbe-Mails
Der Nutzung von im Rahmen der Impressumspflicht veröffentlichten Kontaktdaten zur Übersendung von nicht ausdrücklich angeforderter Werbung und Informationsmaterialien wird hiermit widersprochen. Die Betreiber der Seiten behalten sich ausdrücklich rechtliche Schritte im Falle der unverlangten Zusendung von Werbeinformationen, etwa durch Spam-E-Mails, vor.
Auskunft, Löschung, Sperrung
Sie haben jederzeit das Recht auf unentgeltliche Auskunft über Ihre gespeicherten personenbezogenen Daten, deren Herkunft und Empfänger und den Zweck der Datenverarbeitung sowie ein Recht auf Berichtigung, Sperrung oder Löschung dieser Daten. Hierzu sowie zu weiteren Fragen zum Thema personenbezogene Daten können Sie sich jederzeit unter der im Impressum angegebenen Adresse an uns wenden.
Die Internetseiten verwenden teilweise so genannte Cookies. Cookies richten auf Ihrem Rechner keinen Schaden an und enthalten keine Viren. Cookies dienen dazu, unser Angebot nutzerfreundlicher, effektiver und sicherer zu machen. Cookies sind kleine Textdateien, die auf Ihrem Rechner abgelegt werden und die Ihr Browser speichert. Die meisten der von uns verwendeten Cookies sind so genannte „Session-Cookies“. Sie werden nach Ende Ihres Besuchs automatisch gelöscht. Andere Cookies bleiben auf Ihrem Endgerät gespeichert, bis Sie diese löschen. Diese Cookies ermöglichen es uns, Ihren Browser beim nächsten Besuch wieder zu erkennen. Sie können Ihren Browser so einstellen, dass Sie über das Setzen von Cookies informiert werden und Cookies nur im Einzelfall erlauben, die Annahme von Cookies für bestimmte Fälle oder generell ausschließen sowie das automatische Löschen der Cookies beim Schließen des Browser aktivieren. Bei der Deaktivierung von Cookies kann die Funktionalität dieser Website eingeschränkt sein.
Der Provider der Seiten erhebt und speichert automatisch Informationen in so genannten Server-Log Files, die Ihr Browser automatisch an uns übermittelt. Dies sind:
  • Browsertyp/ Browserversion
  • verwendetes Betriebssystem
  • Referrer URL
  • Hostname des zugreifenden Rechners
  • Uhrzeit der Serveranfrage
Diese Daten sind nicht bestimmten Personen zuordenbar. Eine Zusammenführung dieser Daten mit anderen Datenquellen wird nicht vorgenommen. Wir behalten uns vor, diese Daten nachträglich zu prüfen, wenn uns konkrete Anhaltspunkte für eine rechtswidrige Nutzung bekannt werden.
Wenn Sie uns per Kontaktformular Anfragen zukommen lassen, werden Ihre Angaben aus dem Anfrageformular inklusive der von Ihnen dort angegebenen Kontaktdaten zwecks Bearbeitung der Anfrage und für den Fall von Anschlussfragen bei uns gespeichert. Diese Daten geben wir nicht ohne Ihre Einwilligung weiter.
Impressum / Kontakt

JAMI Diallo, Länggassstr. 91, 3012 Bern, ​Schweiz

info @

Wir sind freischaffend und unabhängig. Durch deinen Support wird es so bleiben.

Wenn du Uns unterstützen möchtest, hast du folgende Möglichkeiten.

PayPal Logo

Save settings
Cookies settings